|
|
|
|
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/24/2006 12:40:16 PM | To quote the immortal Omar Khayyam:
With Earth's First Clay They Did the Last Man Knead
And There of the Last Harvest Sowed the Seed
The path of our lives has been carved in the first second of creation. We are here to discover and walk the path. The decisions have already been made. We only need to understand them... | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/25/2006 1:24:46 AM | Infinitee wrote:
Since many of life's events are a surprise and out of our control, then free will is reduced to being a matter of choice in how we REACT to an event. Otherwise you'd have to explain how you can make some things happen, but not others.
This is one of the most epiphanic descriptions of 'compatibilism' I've ever heard. Compatibilism is a robust theory, championed by Hume and described practically in Scripture, which maintains that both free will and determinism at once co-exist and are compatible. Freedom, as described by the compatibilist theory, is not an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same circumstances; rather it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been psychologically disposed differently by some different beliefs or desires. It also maintains that free acts are not uncaused but, rather, caused in the right way—that is, by our choices as determined by our our beliefs and desires, appetites and preferences, characters and influences.
Put plainly, God has determined all events for the sum of human experience and we enjoy a genuine free agency necessary for moral accountability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
Infinitee wrote:
To say it's Gods will is a cop out.
Only for those who say it when they're confronted by a situation they cannot otherwise explain. To say Goddidit for every thing we can't explain is a cop-out and intellectually irresponsible.
It is not a cop-out for those who, like me, mean it sincerely and fully—in every situation, not just when it's convenient. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/26/2006 6:21:33 AM | no one has free will, everyone is controlled by outside forces, no matter what decision you make it is because of these outside forces presents an obstacle forcing you to make a decision, all you can do is to malnipulate these outside forces to work in your favor and even to attempt this can only be done at a sub-level
to prove this, give any example as to how you have free will and I will neutralize it | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/26/2006 7:37:50 AM | i have free will to....
speak....first i just looked and studied, but then one day i used my free will and decided to say "mom" | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/26/2006 8:09:12 AM | you can speak but outside forces controls the decision of what you are willing to take a chance on saying, outside forces allows you to say certains things and would move in on you if you misspeak, you just can't say what you wish to say without consequences you will have to make a decision on what to say
for example
go on an airplane and say HI-JACK or go into a movie theater and yell fire, of course to do this is stupid, but it is stupid because doing this would cause the outside forces that control what you are allow to say to move against you, so you can speak but only within the bounderies of what is allowed...hence no free speech
and remember you had to look and studied before you made the decision to say MOM
YOU HAVE BEEN NEUTRALIZED | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/26/2006 9:34:38 AM | It's NOT an either-or proposition. We have free will AND we are subject to external events (many of which are random, natural, or the choices of others), at the same time. Our control over our lives has limits, but that does not negate free will whatsoever.
The world is not deterministic. The old clockwork universe model was totally debunked by quantum theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/26/2006 9:59:40 AM |
YOU HAVE BEEN NEUTRALIZED
D-a-m-n you!!!!!!!!  | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/27/2006 9:39:03 AM | Bad things happen to people because we are sinners living in a fallen world.
OP, the accident that killed the pregnant woman was not God's fault. The driver made the decision to drive the pickup truck too fast. For whatever reason, the woman didn't see the truck coming and stepped into its path. You say the driver's actions weren't a matter of evil. Why not? Just because the driver was upset that he killed a pregnant woman doesn't mean that his actions were not evil. The driver killed the woman and will probably face vehicular homicide charges. Maybe that is why the driver was so upset.
God ordains all things. As the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3, "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die." Yes, the woman didn't choose to die. We don't choose to be born or to die. It was obviously this woman's time to die. That may sound harsh, but God give us all a set lifespan. When our time comes, He takes our life. Since God is the giver of life, it is His right to take our life. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 5/27/2006 10:05:54 AM | | ^^^God is not a HE or a SHE and I don't think the creator would interfere one way or the other. It sounds too petty to me. I do believe in fate though, none of us knows the time or day when we will leave earth anymore than when we would arrive. Whatever the purpose is under heaven... Turn, Turn, Turn. :) | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/4/2006 3:56:48 AM | zentral wrote
The world is not deterministic. The old clockwork universe model was totally debunked by quantum theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory.
Quantum, chaos and complexity theories NEVER, and I mean NEVER, lead to the conclusion that the world is not deterministic.
- NEVER -
They simply state that the phenomena observed are too complex for humans to understand.
FINAL POINT.
I'm sorry to say this but you're way off of your league here, buddy. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/4/2006 9:53:44 AM | | Always a conflict driven discussion, God vs. free will. As if God was against the concept makes me laugh. It seems to me that we are the ones against free will because I have still yet to see any tangible evidence for God and trust me I am seeking. So it is our minds that are versus free will. I think this may stem from the lack of trust that we in humans place in ourselves, we have made mistakes and we know that we far from perfect. So it seems that our free will is to blame, I disagree and agree with that idea. While our free will can be problematic it is only so if we choose not be utterly responsible for our actions and to be unaware of the thoughts and emotions that drive our actions. If you a walking around like a robot completely unware of your deeper reality then it would seem like your free will is in conflict with reality and thats because it most likely is. This is important because you have the free will to choose a different way of being hence the agreement and disagrement. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 3:29:42 PM | | This is one of the classic debates.Yet ive never met one christian who could out debate a buddhist.The bible is full of holes in its philosophy as buddhism is rich and complex.How could everything be pre determined if we can make an actual choice at this second.For instance I can either write this in this box or I cannot.I made the choice and not a supreme being in the universe which never shows itself as the Almighty god.One would wish to believe in such a philosophy to control others and threaten them with an infinite hell.We are the masters of ourselves through the laws of cause and effect.If we do good we will experience happiness and if we do bad unhappiness.In short, Karma.I am who I am as a result of my choices in life and my past lives.Reincarnation all the way. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 4:42:08 PM | Ultimate Gemini: My understanding of Karma is that the only good Karma is no Karma. In other words, any Karma is bad Karma. I got this from a friend who teaches comparative religions at the college level.
Just because you have never met a Christian who could outdebate a Buddhist doesn't mean that the Christian faith is lacking in substance. It means that YOU have very limited experience with debates between the two worldviews. There is very little common ground for the two worldviews to come together to debate. Buddhism doesn't even have a deity so it is more of a philosophy than a religion.
As far as the choice you have made to write in this box or not, the Reformed Faith , a.k.a. Calvinism, teaches that God has foreordained all things that come to pass. You have made the decision of your own free agency, but God ordained that you would decide to make your post. God did not offer violence to your will. This is orthodox Christian doctrine in my opinion. God is seen has not only the Creator but as the one who works out all things according to His Providence. (See 1 King 22:28, 34.)
I agree that you make your own decisions otherwise God would be unjust to hold you accountable for them. That is why you are given free agency. But the Bible clearly teaches that God knows everything you think, say, and do before you perform those actions. God knows the end from the beginning.
I don't understand why you would want to be reincarnated. You are already a human. Won't you come back as a bug or some other animal because of your (bad) Karma? Isn't being a human the best you can be? Isn't the goal now to achieve nirvana by achieving nothingness--ceasing to exist consciously?
Just to clarify things: this thread is about free will vs. God. In theology free will has to do ONLY with man's ability to believe the Gospel when it is presented to him. This is a debate that goes back to Augustine vs. Pelagius, and Calvin vs. Arminius. I take the side of Augustine and Calvin.
I think most people on this thread are calling free will what is more properly call FREE AGENCY--the ability of man to make his own decisions and be accountable for those actions before God. The debate in this topic is how can man be free if God is sovereign. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 5:34:43 PM |
Ultimate Gemini: My understanding of Karma is that the only good Karma is no Karma. In other words, any Karma is bad Karma. I got this from a friend who teaches comparative religions at the college level.
There is such a thing as good Karma... It weighs against the bad(in the case of reincarnation)and determines what you still need to learn in the next life... Of course one of the goals is to become awakened and eliminate your dependancy on the Karmic wheel, but any good lesson learned is indeed good Karma...
Buddhism doesn't even have a deity so it is more of a philosophy than a religion.
Some do... For instance the diety Maya is the holder of the Karmic wheel, but no gods have power over an awakened mind, so no higher powers...
I agree that you make your own decisions otherwise God would be unjust to hold you accountable for them. That is why you are given free agency. But the Bible clearly teaches that God knows everything you think, say, and do before you perform those actions. God knows the end from the beginning.
This is the part that never makes sense to me... God gave us free will because it knew what we were all going to do anyways? It knew we would cause pain to each other and even told many to enslave their neighbors and cast down and kill others who would think differently... This god is unjust and is disgusting if the Bible is a proper charactor witness(which I doubt).
I don't understand why you would want to be reincarnated. You are already a human. Won't you come back as a bug or some other animal because of your (bad) Karma? Isn't being a human the best you can be? Isn't the goal now to achieve nirvana by achieving nothingness--ceasing to exist consciously?
Just had to clarify-- You would be reincarnated as a slightly more or less awakened human, depending on the Karmic accumulation... Nirvana is to enter once more to the source, free of the rebirth of Karma... This is why Buddhists practice how to die... What you think about before you die is helpful... But since compassion is paramount in Buddhism, Nirvana is not reached by any until it is reached by all... That is why ones like the Dalai Lama keep coming back even though they are enlightened... They refuse to go to Nirvana until we all do...
Just to clarify things: this thread is about free will vs. God. In theology free will has to do ONLY with man's ability to believe the Gospel when it is presented to him.
No, it's about free will verses God... That means if we don't believe your gospel, we will tell you why... Gods or no gods. And since you ask questions about reincarnation, you're going to get answers...
But back on topic, just because this god knows what your going to do, doesn't mean it has to approve of it... Just because it can see the future, doesn't mean it can change the future...But then again, an all powerful being could change the future and if it didn't, it would be indifferent or even cruel(imo)...
The debate in this topic is how can man be free if God is sovereign.
Because we are God(IMO) | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 6:13:10 PM | | God is accepted as infinite love for most buddhists.Lets analyze the bible.Sir Moses points a piece of wood in the sky and an entire sea parts in the middle for him and his conquering army.We are to believe a supernatural ,almighty,supreme being is doing this to a man who is killing other people in the name of god.Then Jesus comes changes Sir Moses's philosophy .We are to believe the myths which most are disproven by science in order to be converted into a society which believes more in power than in love and compassion.I remember Jesus calling himself the son of man,man called him the son of god. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 7:57:10 PM | | I know im not as up to date as some here as far as philosophy is concerned, my take on it is very simple and most of it has been said in previous post. God is in control of our lives, he gave us life and he'll take it again, the bible clearly states that Humans, unlike anything else created were created with the ability to choose, not the choice to live or die, or wether to drink coke or pepsi, etc. but a much larger choice... to love god and accept his gift of eternal life, or not love him and reject him as God. The things we do on earth only illustrate which one of the two we choose, so i'd say yes we do have free choice, sometimes a greater sacrifice is required to show which one we choose. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 9:39:06 PM | Ultimate_Gemini said that he has "never met one Christian who could out-debate a Buddhist." First of all, this is patently irrelevant. When you find a Christian who fails in a debate against a Buddhist, you can only draw a conclusion about that particular Christian -- not Christianity itself. This might be made even more clear when you contemplate the inverse of the situation, e.g. if you found a Christian who could lay a Buddhist's argument to ruin, would that mean Buddhism is false?
'Truth' is not determined by one's ability to succeed in a debate. If it were, then the term 'truth' would be nothing more than a biographical descriptive (i.e. describing a person's epistemic acumen) and therefore it would be meaningless with respect to reality on the whole. But this is contrary to what we mean when we say something is 'true', a term which is supposed to describe a correspondence to reality. One's education, knowledge, or critical reasoning skills are completely irrelevant to the issue of reality on the whole. The truth value of each worldview (whether Christianity or Buddhism) is determined by the internal merits of each worldview and its extrinsic features -- not by your ability to debate me.
Secondly, I know a great many Christians that could out-debate ANY Buddhist (e.g. John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, Alvin Plantinga, etc). In fact, even I could out-debate any Buddhist. Does this mean Buddhism is false, then? Should that be our conclusion? It shouldn't be, because as anyone familiar with Buddhism knows, that worldview tends to reject such black-and-white concepts like truth and falsehood on the face of reality. Buddhism generally conceives of 'truth' as a subjective reality, not an objective one. (But then this is why Buddhists are easily defeated in philosophical debate; if you believe 'truth' has no objective referent, then you cannot assert anything true about the real world.)
And as anyone familiar with Buddhism knows, there is not just one Buddhism. There is Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana, Zen, Nichiren Shoshu, and so forth. Before you debate an issue, first make sure you are familiar with that issue. This is why I can out-debate any Buddhist, because more often than not I know more about Buddhism than my opponent. I have spent many years studying over 25 world religions, and about two thirds of those are eastern religions.
Ultimate_Gemini also said that "the Bible is full of holes in its philosophy" and referred to the freewill debate, going on to ask, "How could everything be predetermined if we can make an actual choice at this second?" The fact of the matter is, he asserts a dichotomy but fails to distinguish it. He thinks this is some kind of "hole" in biblical philosophy but fails to show how it's any kind of "hole" at all. A conflict between the former and the latter is not immediately obvious, which means he is working with a number of hidden premises. When finally exposed, those premises will probably prove that he affirms a libertarian model of freewill. The stated conflict is a philosophical "hole" ONLY under a libertarian model. Under a compatibilist model, it's not a hole at all! And when considering the manifold problems that the libertarian model is plagued with, what it considers a "hole" really fails to impress anyone.
"I made the choice [to write this in this box]," he asserts, "and not a supreme being." Good luck proving that. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 10:42:58 PM | Secondly, I know a great many Christians that could out-debate ANY Buddhist (e.g. John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, Alvin Plantinga, etc). In fact, even I could out-debate any Buddhist.
You sound pretty sure of yourself... You also sound like a pompous ass, so your credibility is shot with me... Have you met every Buddhist?
What points would you debate, Mr. Holier Than Thou? | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 11:12:17 PM | | Perhaps you think personal attacks make for a compelling argument, but for rational people that is still defined as a fallacy. It would be a shame if you think that's a feature of intelligent reasoning. If attacking my character is the best you have, well... that's disappointing. And no, I have not met every Buddhist -- but what does that have to do with studying Buddhism? Are you telling me that you have to meet every Christian in the world before you can say you have studied Christianity? Honestly, what is your point here? | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/8/2007 11:34:34 PM | The personal attacks started when you claimed to be able to out debate any Buddhist by knowing more than they do... Saying you know more than me about my choice of belief is a personal attack.
And no, I have not met every Buddhist -- but what does that have to do with studying Buddhism? Are you telling me that you have to meet every Christian in the world before you can say you have studied Christianity? Honestly, what is your point here?
Thank you. Do you not remember what you said? I'll remind you.
This is why I can out-debate any Buddhist, because more often than not I know more about Buddhism than my opponent.
You cannot see how a person with Buddhist beliefs would find this insulting?
I do appologize for the harshness, and yes I do have a lot to learn still but to say you know more about Buddhism than the people who have taken that belief as their own is just insulting and believe it or not that is something I do not like... I never even say that to Christians that I can tell haven't even read the whole Bible, cuz it is just not cool... If they claim to know the unknowable, that's different...
Again, sorry for the insult, but you must be able to see how it sounded to me... | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:01:16 AM | "The personal attacks started," you said—but we can stop right there because, in a rational discussion, they should not have started at all. Although you are free to head straight into personal attacks within your response, I sincerely doubt it will convince anyone. Good arguments do that, not fallacious ones.
And I never claimed to be able to out-debate any Buddhist "by knowing more than they do." The readers can easily verify that I said "more often than not I know more about Buddhism than my opponent"—and they probably know that the expression "more often than not" hardly describes a uniform experience. The fact is I have run into a few that know more about Buddhism than I do and I learn much from them. But "more often than not" this is not my experience.
"Saying you know more than me about my choice of belief is a personal attack," you said. Okay first, no it's not. Second, even if it was, I never said I know more about it than you do. I never said a thing about what you do or don't know. I have no idea where you're pulling these things from but I'm sure the sun doesn't shine there. It sure isn't from my posts, anyway.
"You cannot see how a person with Buddhist beliefs would find this insulting?" First of all, I really don't care if they feel insulted. In a discussion that evaluates worldviews, I care about truth, not feelings. If you want to make sure people feel good and that they like you, go ahead. Truth and knowledge is my agenda. Second, this completely fails to answer my question. You asked whether I've met every Buddhist and I asked what possible relevance that question could have.
"If they claim to know the unknowable, that's different." Sure, starting with the fact that nothing in this universe is unknowable. To claim that something is unknowable is self-contradicting nonsense.
Although I appreciate your apology, I must insist that feelings are not an issue for me—not even my own, because I don't bring my feelings into a rational discussion. You cannot insult me nor hurt me because I never evaluate people's statements by how they make me feel; I evaluate them by whether they are rational or true. Your personal attacks do not affect me, but they sure do reflect you. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:15:20 AM |
And I never claimed to be able to out-debate any Buddhist "by knowing more than they do." The readers can easily verify that I said "more often than not I know more about Buddhism than my opponent"—
Second, even if it was, I never said I know more about it than you do.
I have no idea where you're pulling these things from but I'm sure the sun doesn't shine there. It sure isn't from my posts, anyway.
Ummmm....
In fact, even I could out-debate any Buddhist.
Care to try again?
You cannot see how a person with Buddhist beliefs would find this insulting?" First of all, I really don't care if they feel insulted. In a discussion that evaluates worldviews, I care about truth, not feelings.
And I say there is no way you can know the truth...
If you want to make sure people feel good and that they like you, go ahead. Truth and knowledge is my agenda.
I couldn't care less if people like me or not... As long as I'm true to myself, that's all that matters... And you will never find truth by alienating people... You just look arrogant...
To claim that something is unknowable is self-contradicting nonsense.
They call it the unknown for a reason, lol! Or do you claim to know truth? lol!
Now who's spouting nonsense?
Although I appreciate your apology, I must insist that feelings are not an issue for me—not even my own, because I don't bring my feelings into a rational discussion.
In fact, even I could out-debate any Buddhist
Sounds like unfounded pride to me!
You cannot insult me nor hurt me because I never evaluate people's statements by how they make me feel; I evaluate them by whether they are rational or true.
It is not my intention to hurt you... Only to show that you DID INDEED claim to be able to out debate ANY Buddhist! | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:37:37 AM | | Alright now. Lets go to the scientific experts on this topic.I guess the buddhist philosophy hasnt convinced you that you are master of your own self.Why do we go to science to find an answer when somene is killed?Evidence.Plain and simple.If you can prove that the concept of God has been more to control people rather than help them than you draw your own conclusions about God.When a philosphy falls apart through investigation,we can conclude it as false.Of course,this is why Buddhism does not accept the supreme god or creator belief.The belief in a supreme god is not surprising in a religion which controls its subjects.Nowhere did even Jesus teach supremecy. He actually teaches humility.He is said to wash his disciples feet,he even denies himself. I think this is amazing because buddhism teaches self denial.Where did the truth of Jesus Christ's teachings get twisted up. If I remember correctly Jesus was debating the beliefs of Judaism rather than accept it.This by conclusion would classify him as a buddhist.Jesus never accepted blind faith.Instead he challenged many of the teachers and religious leaders through debate. "Never has anyone spoken like this "claimed the crowds listening to him. Its as if Jesus was really a philosopher trying to change the political forces which were corrupting the nation.Instead of performing the so called miracles,we have much evidence Jesus is asked to perform them but simply refuses to.Then we get to other parts of the bible which say he cured sickness and so forth.Then we get to other parts it seems to contradict another story.I have a strong theory this is when the bad guys get in.When a religion uses a wiseman as their leader sometimes the story is not always the same as it was presented in completeness.Jesus claimed that many would worship him with their lips but their hearts were far from him.All of Jesus's teachings come from the Buddha 500 years before him.Bottom line is when Jesus taught of god he came from the heart,not the sky looking for a supreme being to believe in.He actually taught that I am in you,and you are in me.These simple philosphies prove he was a philospher and by definition a fully enlightened buddha. | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/9/2007 2:30:36 AM | I wonder why people get so caught up on such a topic of ultimate freedom when we are not even free to be ourselves. From the moment we were born we have become slave to our emotions, wants and needs, desires etc... Then we pretend that we are in control of our lives. I don't think one human being is free to make a single choice that is truly free. Our Choices are based mostly on emotional responses instead of clear thought and heart centered action.
The freest human is the one with the most choices. At best if we are on a path of self integration or attaining the good life as Carl Rogers calls it, we are continually freeing ourselves from years of conditioning and seeing things more as they are then through our own filters. And even then we really can't be sure that our choices are free because we may have just installed more favorable lenses to see the world through.
The question of God or no God, free will or destiny are pointless until we can free ourselves enough to make an intelligent decision that is free from our own limitations. I am emotionally triggered all the time and know my own human frailties and inability to make choices that are free of attachments that hold me back. Perhaps i will always be triggered but i'm glad i can recognize when i am. I still choose to act on some of them which shows me just how bound i am.
crazylilting | |
|
| Free will vs. God
Posted: 6/9/2007 4:37:48 AM | crazylilting,
Great post.
The OP is correct. My own thread demonstrated this some time ago. Simply put, 'free will' is a myth - everything comes at a price, it's all part of being human. And if we are imperfect, free will makes even less sense because our choices are born out of those imperfection. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
